Subject: Re: [netmod] VRFY :45: better conformance mechanism

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 18:45:58 +0200

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:59:31AM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> after long discussions in physical meetings, virtual meetings, and on
> the mailing list, I believe we have reached rough consensus to adopt
> Y45-04 in order to resolve import ambiguities (aka typedef drift and
> grouping drift) and we will leave it to YANG extensions (to be worked
> on in the future) to provide means to define explicit conformance
> requirements (instead of trying to derive conformance requirements
> from import relationships alone). A recent poll of core contributors
> on this issue can be found here:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg12560.html
> 
> Please speak up by Monday 2015-05-25 if you disagree with this
> proposal and your position is not yet included in the email message
> pointed to above.
> 
> For more details, see the issues list available here:
> 
>      http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/
>

I have reviewed the final round of discussion and I have not seen
additional comments that strengthen the objection raised by Andy.

During the discussion, it was observed by Lada that a YANG 1.1 module
using multiple imports by revision can be translated into a set of
YANG 1.0 submodules (each using import by revision) resulting in same
behaviour, namely that different leafs in the module use different
versions of a typedef (or expand from different version of a
grouping).

I have moved Y45 to the EDIT state (adopted solution Y45-04 with rough
consensus).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>